Yes it's common for close states to be recounted, however there are states where Clinton's victory margin was smaller than Trump's victory margin in the 3 states that are being recounted, yet they're not being recounted.

It's not just recounts that are threatening the result of the election. It's the Clinton supporters rioting in the streets, trying to threaten the electoral college into voting for Clinton regardless of how their state voted, the whole "#NotMyPresident" nonsense and trying to find ways to circumvent the election by claiming the popular vote should be considered over the electoral college. It's the democrats/Clinton voters that are doing exactly what Clinton herself said would be a threat to our democracy.

Good job on addressing 15% of my point. In 2012, Trump said: "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

Comparing the destruction that the clinton voters are wreaking to all the nothing that happened in 2012 from the Republicans, it's not an argument. Even if the Republicans had violent riots in 2012, it still wouldn't be acceptable today.

Actually if you could struggle to the end of what I wrote then you'd see; "It still wouldn't be acceptable today". That applies to both sides. But one side doing it does not permit the other doing it 4 years later.

You still didn't address the remainder of my argument, you merely constructed a strawman when i addressed your argument, and attacked that. But I don't expect much more from the left.

First of all, states have different rules regarding recounts and not all have one. The margin in New Hampshire is - with Michigan - the closest one with about 0,3% and they don't have a recount protocol in any case.
Secondly, as a rule of thumb everything over 0,5% difference does not valid a recount. The exception to this is Michigan in which it is not a certain percentage but a 2.000 margin.

In this election there is not one "swing state" that - by standard protocol - validates a recount because the margins were not close enough.
Not PA, not WI, not MI, not NH, not NV, not MI - not one state.

The recounts that are asked for right now do not fall under these rules but rather are trying to be "forced" under the claim that the election process MIGHT HAVE BEEN tampered with even though everyone, and even the side that does ask for the recounts, acknowledges that there is no evidence for that.

One of the issues is that the recounts are only being held in states that Trump won, while not counting that states Hillary won with a SMALLER margin. Thhe closest state Trump won was PA with ~10,000 votes while Hillary lost NH with ~2,700 votes. The fact that Hillary's campaign is helping with the recount doesn't really help, either.

Those are absolute votes, not percentage and most states have rules based on percentage margin, not absolute votes.

Michigan is the only one I can think of with an absolute 2.000 votes rule, which is irrelevant, though, because Trump won by 10.000.
The premise of alltimetens is false, though. These recounts are not protocol.

I didn't consider the percentage factor as opposed to flat votes, and acknowledge that is important to consider. However, I still think it looks suspicious for a 3rd party to call recounts several in states that would only benefit to swing the election to one party when the pretext for the recount is to ensure a fair election.

Even the Green Party itself acknowledges that this move is confusing, that there are other close states and it's a move just by Stein alone - she is not backed by her party at all.
The automatic recount is not relevant in this case.

Now, if we assume that Stein did this move without any pressure from outside then it is pretty obvious IMO why she is just calling for recounts in Trump states:
If she called for recounts in NH or MI, then she wouldn't get so much support and money. People might get scared at the thought that Hillary could lose other states, too, and even if it's not really relevant - since Hillary lost - they wouldn't support a recount that could potentially harm Hillary.

So I think it's quite fair to say that, even though we are not absolutely sure why Stein called for a recount, it is obvious why she called for recounts in red states only.

FYI
Wisconsin gave her an estimate of 3.5 million dollars to pay. Which is incredibl high but great news, because there are two possibilities now:
1.) She pays the money ASAP, then we can rather safely assume she really wanted the money for a recount
2.) She doesn't pay the money. Then we pretty much have the confirmation that the recount was only a front to get as much money (for whatever) as possible.

One of the issues is that the recounts are only being held in states that Trump won, while not counting that states Hillary won with a SMALLER margin. Thhe closest state Trump won was PA with ~10,000 votes while Hillary lost NH with ~2,700 votes. The fact that Hillary's campaign is helping with the recount doesn't really help, either.

To be proven wrong you must provide proof. You have flip flopped on subjects like a dying fish. what is your point? Sum up your entire position in this argument in a simple sentence. Or you should take the advice and kill yourself.

I haven't actually heard any Trumpers be worried about it. Use it as ammo to blast Hillary even more...yes. Worry (or even insinuate they want to stop it), no. In fact the most common refrain I've heard is along the lines of: "Why recount? So that Trump can win again!"

Yes it's common for close states to be recounted, however there are states where Clinton's victory margin was smaller than Trump's victory margin in the 3 states that are being recounted, yet they're not being recounted.

It's not just recounts that are threatening the result of the election. It's the Clinton supporters rioting in the streets, trying to threaten the electoral college into voting for Clinton regardless of how their state voted, the whole "#NotMyPresident" nonsense and trying to find ways to circumvent the election by claiming the popular vote should be considered over the electoral college. It's the democrats/Clinton voters that are doing exactly what Clinton herself said would be a threat to our democracy.

Good job on addressing 15% of my point. In 2012, Trump said: "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

Comparing the destruction that the clinton voters are wreaking to all the nothing that happened in 2012 from the Republicans, it's not an argument. Even if the Republicans had violent riots in 2012, it still wouldn't be acceptable today.

Actually if you could struggle to the end of what I wrote then you'd see; "It still wouldn't be acceptable today". That applies to both sides. But one side doing it does not permit the other doing it 4 years later.

You still didn't address the remainder of my argument, you merely constructed a strawman when i addressed your argument, and attacked that. But I don't expect much more from the left.

First of all, states have different rules regarding recounts and not all have one. The margin in New Hampshire is - with Michigan - the closest one with about 0,3% and they don't have a recount protocol in any case.
Secondly, as a rule of thumb everything over 0,5% difference does not valid a recount. The exception to this is Michigan in which it is not a certain percentage but a 2.000 margin.

In this election there is not one "swing state" that - by standard protocol - validates a recount because the margins were not close enough.
Not PA, not WI, not MI, not NH, not NV, not MI - not one state.

The recounts that are asked for right now do not fall under these rules but rather are trying to be "forced" under the claim that the election process MIGHT HAVE BEEN tampered with even though everyone, and even the side that does ask for the recounts, acknowledges that there is no evidence for that.

One of the issues is that the recounts are only being held in states that Trump won, while not counting that states Hillary won with a SMALLER margin. Thhe closest state Trump won was PA with ~10,000 votes while Hillary lost NH with ~2,700 votes. The fact that Hillary's campaign is helping with the recount doesn't really help, either.

Those are absolute votes, not percentage and most states have rules based on percentage margin, not absolute votes.

Michigan is the only one I can think of with an absolute 2.000 votes rule, which is irrelevant, though, because Trump won by 10.000.
The premise of alltimetens is false, though. These recounts are not protocol.

I didn't consider the percentage factor as opposed to flat votes, and acknowledge that is important to consider. However, I still think it looks suspicious for a 3rd party to call recounts several in states that would only benefit to swing the election to one party when the pretext for the recount is to ensure a fair election.

Even the Green Party itself acknowledges that this move is confusing, that there are other close states and it's a move just by Stein alone - she is not backed by her party at all.
The automatic recount is not relevant in this case.

Now, if we assume that Stein did this move without any pressure from outside then it is pretty obvious IMO why she is just calling for recounts in Trump states:
If she called for recounts in NH or MI, then she wouldn't get so much support and money. People might get scared at the thought that Hillary could lose other states, too, and even if it's not really relevant - since Hillary lost - they wouldn't support a recount that could potentially harm Hillary.

So I think it's quite fair to say that, even though we are not absolutely sure why Stein called for a recount, it is obvious why she called for recounts in red states only.

FYI
Wisconsin gave her an estimate of 3.5 million dollars to pay. Which is incredibl high but great news, because there are two possibilities now:
1.) She pays the money ASAP, then we can rather safely assume she really wanted the money for a recount
2.) She doesn't pay the money. Then we pretty much have the confirmation that the recount was only a front to get as much money (for whatever) as possible.

One of the issues is that the recounts are only being held in states that Trump won, while not counting that states Hillary won with a SMALLER margin. Thhe closest state Trump won was PA with ~10,000 votes while Hillary lost NH with ~2,700 votes. The fact that Hillary's campaign is helping with the recount doesn't really help, either.

Basically calling out Hillary on her hypocrisy saying how Trump is undermining democracy if he did not accept election results AND THEN we see Hillary not accepting the results of the elections. Basically Hillary is undermining democracy according to her own statement.

I'm indifferent.
Recounts are always done in states that have incredibly close margins.
If Trumpers are so confident in this country's democratic process then they shouldn't have any problems with it either. Hillary already conceded.

I haven't actually heard any Trumpers be worried about it. Use it as ammo to blast Hillary even more...yes. Worry (or even insinuate they want to stop it), no. In fact the most common refrain I've heard is along the lines of: "Why recount? So that Trump can win again!"

Yes it's common for close states to be recounted, however there are states where Clinton's victory margin was smaller than Trump's victory margin in the 3 states that are being recounted, yet they're not being recounted.

It's not just recounts that are threatening the result of the election. It's the Clinton supporters rioting in the streets, trying to threaten the electoral college into voting for Clinton regardless of how their state voted, the whole "#NotMyPresident" nonsense and trying to find ways to circumvent the election by claiming the popular vote should be considered over the electoral college. It's the democrats/Clinton voters that are doing exactly what Clinton herself said would be a threat to our democracy.

Good job on addressing 15% of my point. In 2012, Trump said: "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

Comparing the destruction that the clinton voters are wreaking to all the nothing that happened in 2012 from the Republicans, it's not an argument. Even if the Republicans had violent riots in 2012, it still wouldn't be acceptable today.

Actually if you could struggle to the end of what I wrote then you'd see; "It still wouldn't be acceptable today". That applies to both sides. But one side doing it does not permit the other doing it 4 years later.

You still didn't address the remainder of my argument, you merely constructed a strawman when i addressed your argument, and attacked that. But I don't expect much more from the left.

First of all, states have different rules regarding recounts and not all have one. The margin in New Hampshire is - with Michigan - the closest one with about 0,3% and they don't have a recount protocol in any case.
Secondly, as a rule of thumb everything over 0,5% difference does not valid a recount. The exception to this is Michigan in which it is not a certain percentage but a 2.000 margin.

In this election there is not one "swing state" that - by standard protocol - validates a recount because the margins were not close enough.
Not PA, not WI, not MI, not NH, not NV, not MI - not one state.

The recounts that are asked for right now do not fall under these rules but rather are trying to be "forced" under the claim that the election process MIGHT HAVE BEEN tampered with even though everyone, and even the side that does ask for the recounts, acknowledges that there is no evidence for that.

One of the issues is that the recounts are only being held in states that Trump won, while not counting that states Hillary won with a SMALLER margin. Thhe closest state Trump won was PA with ~10,000 votes while Hillary lost NH with ~2,700 votes. The fact that Hillary's campaign is helping with the recount doesn't really help, either.

Those are absolute votes, not percentage and most states have rules based on percentage margin, not absolute votes.

Michigan is the only one I can think of with an absolute 2.000 votes rule, which is irrelevant, though, because Trump won by 10.000.
The premise of alltimetens is false, though. These recounts are not protocol.

I didn't consider the percentage factor as opposed to flat votes, and acknowledge that is important to consider. However, I still think it looks suspicious for a 3rd party to call recounts several in states that would only benefit to swing the election to one party when the pretext for the recount is to ensure a fair election.

Even the Green Party itself acknowledges that this move is confusing, that there are other close states and it's a move just by Stein alone - she is not backed by her party at all.
The automatic recount is not relevant in this case.

Now, if we assume that Stein did this move without any pressure from outside then it is pretty obvious IMO why she is just calling for recounts in Trump states:
If she called for recounts in NH or MI, then she wouldn't get so much support and money. People might get scared at the thought that Hillary could lose other states, too, and even if it's not really relevant - since Hillary lost - they wouldn't support a recount that could potentially harm Hillary.

So I think it's quite fair to say that, even though we are not absolutely sure why Stein called for a recount, it is obvious why she called for recounts in red states only.

FYI
Wisconsin gave her an estimate of 3.5 million dollars to pay. Which is incredibl high but great news, because there are two possibilities now:
1.) She pays the money ASAP, then we can rather safely assume she really wanted the money for a recount
2.) She doesn't pay the money. Then we pretty much have the confirmation that the recount was only a front to get as much money (for whatever) as possible.

One of the issues is that the recounts are only being held in states that Trump won, while not counting that states Hillary won with a SMALLER margin. Thhe closest state Trump won was PA with ~10,000 votes while Hillary lost NH with ~2,700 votes. The fact that Hillary's campaign is helping with the recount doesn't really help, either.